How The Current Copyright Laws Are Not Be Reformed For Prevent Copyright Trolling

violators. So although some form of a copyright law is needed, the one we have

In the late 1990s, most homes and organizations began to receive Internet access. In correlation, many features became available to Web including the fact that files of any type could be downloaded with ease from any source quickly and often for free. The film and music industries felt that the availability of the Internet was posing a large threat to their business model. It was so easy to obtain a song or even an entire movie clip with a click of a mouse. Software and books could be had for “free” as well. It was a common misconception then that these files were available for the taking without needing to pay for it and also without any worry of penalty. In turn, many otherwise “innocent” individuals would obtain this copyrighted

Imagine a group of police officers driving down the road, talking on radios, equipping gear, and getting ready to approach a house. Guns ready, they then walk up to the house and bang on the door, after a couple of seconds the door opens, and inside can be seen a man and his daughter. They seem shocked and afraid, and the police proceed to confiscate the little girl’s “Winnie the Pooh” laptop. All this happened because the little girl unknowingly downloaded a song off the internet. Before this happened though, the man was sent an offer to settle for the theft for a fine of 773$ and a signed non-disclosure agreement to keep him from talking[1]. This kind of overreaction towards internet crimes should not be acceptable, therefore laws regarding piracy should be reformed to make lawsuits less devastating towards those who pirated the digital goods. But many don’t know what the laws about piracy actually say, Quoted from wiseGEEK they are as follows:

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPILA) (http://www.aipla.org/learningcenter/library/books/econsurvey/Pages/default.aspx) estimates that the average cost of defending a patent infringement case is $650,000 for lawsuits of $1 million or less and $2.5 million for those of $1 to $25 million. Because patent trolls know that many small companies lack these kinds of dollars for a fight over intellectual property, they often ask for relatively small sums of money – in the tens of thousands of dollars. The difference between the trolls’ demand for compensation and the cost of defending an infringement charge gives small business owners a strong incentive to pay up rather than

According to Pamela Samuelson the possibility exists that all this could soon change. In her essay, she refers to a "white paper" that was issued by the Clinton administration in 1995. I did some further research on this white paper and found a summary on line. It is actually a report on Intellectual Property rights written by the Information Infrastructure Task Force. Basically there is a committee appointed by the White House that is looking into fairly regulating the balance between artists' rights and the consumer. According to the summary "Technology has altered the copyright balance-in some instances in favor of copyright owners and in others, in favor of users. The goal of the recommendations is to clarify existing law and adapt it where the balance has shifted". (Intellectual Property and the

Regardless, people should care about the law to not get caught by copyright. The people who are actually getting hurt are the ones who created their works and got uploaded on the Internet by other people. Money has been stolen from the creative people. In other words, some Internet users who are illegally uploading and exchanging materials are violating the rights of copyright holders to distribute and earn profit from their own creative works, so the government needs to make the law stricter and take down copyright material that was posted without permission.

Copyright is a thing made in 1978 to help protect the work of the software creators from their work being pirated or stolen by other people. It does cost a bit of money, but if you are planning on making a profit, it is totally worth it! It is possible to use copyrighted material, but we will get to that later. Copyright makes it illegal to steal or pyrite your work, it also applies to other stuff than just computer stuff.

Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents have too much overreaching and unmonitored power of subjects that could be considered as general knowledge from the public and that we need new laws to help monitor and protect others rights. In the modern age the internet has become a daily part of our lives and yet some people claim rights to things that we as people should all have rights to. There has been some recent controversy concerning React World and there Trademark of there video format known as the react format and the issue with the happy birthday song and how you must pay just to sing a jingle. Out of the several billions and billions of people on the planet earth that was living, is living, or will be living there are still some that believe that for some reason they have more rights and more power than the rest of us and that is inconsiderate, inhumane, and unjust.

On October 28, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which was designed to address issues in copyright laws created by evolving technology -(“Piracy and File-Sharing”).  The law was also aimed at international concerns involving copyright, and even ended up setting the rules for copyright infringement on the internet - (“Piracy and File-Sharing”).  In 1997, President Clinton signed the No Electronic Theft Act (NET) which provides for enhanced criminal remedies for copyright infringement. The law was designed to stem the widespread theft of computer software -(“Piracy and

Although there are many people and organizations involved in the fight against music piracy, there are many road blocks standing in the way. In 1984 there was a Supreme Court ruling which protected Sony Betamax from being held liable for circulating copyright violations through the use of video cassette recorders. The courts ruled that the recorders had

Since the beginning, copyrights have existed to protect people from theft of content, thus inspiring more creativity from the public. The interpretation of these laws has been twisted by large corporations to serve as a legal means to restrict content for public use and to gain from profitable licensing. It is essential that copyrighted materials are available to everyone for our culture to grow. With the copyright laws so perplexing and different depending on the context, individuals may not understand they are committing a crime by using information and be subjected to lawsuits, despite good intentions. Lawrence Lessig’s three proposals for copyright changes are key concepts facing issues like this. It is crucial we pay attention because our cultural future is in jeopardy.

“Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet” (Mark Twain). The concept of copyright in the United States has a large history. The first form of copyright in the United States stems from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution in the year 1787, where “Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." These “exclusive rights” were originally extremely limited, as the first Copyright Act of 1790 only applied to maps, charts, and books. As time has advanced, copyright practices in the United States have undergone several reforms, among the most recent being the infamous Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. Said act updated United States law to the requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), such as placing limitations on the liability of online service providers for copyright violations made by users. The act, however, has been a subject of controversy in recent times, as some content creators abuse it to control access to their content. This is accomplished through methods such as copyright trolling, in which the copyright holder produces works solely for the purpose of litigation rather than distribution. Oftentimes, these practices are thought to be a violation of fair use, which enables copyrighted work to be used without

In the digitalized the age, people have the ability to easily spread and share knowledge. With this great ability people are also given the tools to infringe upon the intellectual property of others. Whether this be through intentional copyright infringement, plagiarism or any other action that infringes upon the rights of others intellectual property. With so many cases of copyright infringement being brought before the legal system of the United States and other countries the problem of copyright infringement has grown out of control. Legally copyright infringement is a "strict liability" tort, which means that intentions don 't matter, if infringement occurred, then the infringer is liable. Copyright laws being as complex as they are have multiple ways to interpret it, with the United States having “Fair Use” as a vague way of being able to use this content. This ability to use also can lead to the infringement upon others works, whether this is by willfully violating a copyright, just plain ignorance the copyright or not understanding how to comply with a copyright.

The United States is an outlier in the global copyright committee in giving the plaintiffs in copyright cases the option to elect, any time before the final judgment, to receive an award of statutory damages. The statutory damages may be granted to an amount between the ranges of $750 to $150,000 per infringed work. As the name suggests, “Statutory damages” are damages whose amount or range is set by law, usually not taking into consideration the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff. Statutory damages to the defendants can be seen as a multiplier of liability, especially in cases whereby claims, or parties, are aggregated. On the other hand, statutory damages is a procedural advantage for the plaintiffs as it allows them to simplify their proofs and awards them damages without the need to proffer evidence of actual injury.

At the end it costs both the plaintiff and the accuser a lot of time and money. In worst scenarios, the financial burden can end the existence of a company. Additionally, many current businesses are losing millions of profits due to pirating and copyright infringements. This is lost revenue that may me applicable to further strengthen the economy.